Hernandez v. Ballam, 1:17-cv-00468-LJO-BAM (PC). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180817c56
Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 16, 2018
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY [Doc No. 61] BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Anthony Ceasar Hernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On July 9, 2018, the Court stayed this matter pending the resolution of Plaintiff's criminal case concerning the same events at issue in this case. (Doc. No. 56.) On August 14, 201
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY [Doc No. 61] BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Anthony Ceasar Hernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On July 9, 2018, the Court stayed this matter pending the resolution of Plaintiff's criminal case concerning the same events at issue in this case. (Doc. No. 56.) On August 14, 2018..
More
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY
[Doc No. 61]
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Anthony Ceasar Hernandez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 9, 2018, the Court stayed this matter pending the resolution of Plaintiff's criminal case concerning the same events at issue in this case. (Doc. No. 56.)
On August 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants' reply in support of their motion to stay. (Doc. No. 61.) The Court construes this filing as a surreply.
No further briefing on Defendant's motion to stay is permitted absent leave of court. The Court did not grant Plaintiff leave to file a surreply, and the Court does not desire any further briefing on the motion. The motion has been ruled upon, as noted above.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's surreply (Doc. No. 61) is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
